Country Situations > Sudan

Sudan: Visits & Communications

Country Visits

The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, then Asma Jahangir, visited Sudan in June 2004. The report on this visit is E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.2, and the follow-up report concerning implementation of its recommendations is E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.2.

Correspondence from 2007

The record of correspondence for 2007 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, A/HRC/4/20/Add.1.

Sudan: Death Sentences of Bakhiet Mohamed Bakhiet and Abd Almalik Abdalla Mahmoud

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 2 males

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Sudan has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

Urgent appeal dated 23 December 2005

I would like to bring to the attention of Your Excellency’s Government the situation of Mr. Bakhiet Mohamed Bakhiet and Mr. Abd Almalik Abdalla Mahmoud who have reportedly been sentenced to death by the Special Criminal Court for the Events in Darfur sitting in Al-Fashir.

According to the information I have received, the two men are lance corporals in the Sudanese army. Together with a third member of the military, they were accused of having tortured to death a man (named Adam Idris Mohamed Hatim) they had arrested on the suspicion of belonging to a rebel group. The three men were charged with murder under Article 130 of the 1991 Penal Code of the Sudan. The trial before the Special Criminal Court for the Events in Darfur sitting in Al-Fashir began in June 2005 (case no. 408/2005). On 17 November 2005, the Special Criminal Court found Cpl Bakhiet Mohamed Bakhiet and Cpl Abd Almalik Abdalla Mahmoud guilty and sentenced them to death, acquitting the third defendant. According to the information I have received, the two corporals had two weeks to file an appeal against the judgment.

My predecessor as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions stated in her report on the visit to the Sudan in June 2004 that “it is of the utmost importance that investigations be carried out to ascertain the details of the events in Darfur, including extrajudicial killings, and to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice” (E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.2, § 60). In this respect, I welcome the trial and conviction of two soldiers of the Sudanese armed forces for the murder of a civilian.

At the same time, however, I would like to express my concern about the imposition of the death penalty in this case. As you know, although the death penalty is not prohibited under international law, it must be regarded as an extreme exception to the fundamental right to life, and must as such be interpreted in the most restrictive manner. Therefore, it is crucial that all restrictions and fair trial standards pertaining to capital punishment contained in international human rights law are fully respected in proceedings relating to capital offences. As stated by the Human Rights Committee, “in capital punishment cases, the obligation of States parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the [ICCPR] admits of no exception” (Little v. Jamaica, communication no. 283/1988, Views of the Human Rights Committee of 19 November 1991, para. 10).

As I wrote in the Summary of information received regarding the follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur in her Report on the visit to the Sudan, which I transmitted to Your Excellency’s Government as an attachment to my letter of 21 September 2005, reports I have received indicate that international fair trial standards are not guaranteed in criminal proceedings before the Special Criminal Court for the Events in Darfur. In particular, there appears to be no rule clearly establishing the right not to be coerced to admit guilt (§§ 66-67 of the Summary). There also appears to be some lack of clarity surrounding the right to legal representation (§§ 68-70 of the Summary). Finally, I am concerned by the reportedly very short dead line for appeals (two weeks), which risks compromising the effectiveness of the right to appeal.

I urge your Excellency's Government to ensure that these concerns are given full consideration in the appeals proceedings or, should the appeal already have been decided, in any further proceedings in which the defendants might seek commutation of their sentence.

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Without in any way wishing to pre-judge the accuracy of the information received, I would respectfully request your Excellency’s Government to provide me with details regarding the following matters:

- the composition of the court (number of professional and/or lay judges);

- the duration of the proceedings since Cpl Bakhiet Mohamed Bakhiet and Cpl Abd Almalik Abdalla Mahmoud were charged with the murder, and in particular of the trial hearings;

- whether Cpl Bakhiet Mohamed Bakhiet and Cpl Abd Almalik Abdalla Mahmoud were represented by counsel of their own choosing, how much time such counsel was afforded to prepare the defense, and whether there were any limitations on the right of counsel to communicate freely with the defendants (both before and during trial), to call witnesses in defense and to examine witnesses called by the prosecution;

- whether the guilty finding against Cpl Bakhiet Mohamed Bakhiet and Cpl Abd Almalik Abdalla Mahmoud was based on an admission of guilt on their side, and if so, whether this admission was obtained during the pre-trial phase or in open court;

- whether the two weeks to file an appeal against the judgment run from the proclamation of the sentence in court or from the delivery of the written judgment to the defendants;

- whether the appeal has been decided, and if so what the outcome is;

- what other procedural avenues are open to Cpl Bakhiet Mohamed Bakhiet and Cpl Abd Almalik Abdalla Mahmoud against the execution of capital punishment;

- whether your Excellency’s Government has investigated the question of command responsibility of the superiors of the two lance corporals, and whether any prosecution of them is envisaged or under way; and, if not so, the reasons for this omission.

Sudan: Attacks on Civilian Populations in Chad by the Armed Forces and Janjaweed Militia

Violation alleged: Deaths due to attacks or killings by security forces, paramilitary groups, or private forces cooperating with or tolerated by the State

Subject(s) of appeal: More than 45 persons

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Sudan has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

Letter of allegation dated 6 March 2006

I would like to bring to your Excellency’s attention information I have received regarding attacks by the Sudanese armed forces and by Janjaweed militias on civilian populations belonging mostly to the Masalit tribe in areas of Chad bordering with the Sudan.

According to the information received, between 5 and 11 December 2005 armed forces of the Sudan and Janjaweed militias attacked twenty-two villages in the prefecture of Goungour, eighty kilometers south of Adré. The governmental soldiers and vehicles were assisted by two attack helicopters, which fired rockets at civilian targets in the settlements attacked. Fragments of air-to-ground rockets, shrapnel, stabilizing fins, and other ordnance reportedly gathered by the villagers and handed over to investigators corroborate these accounts. It is reported that a total of forty-five people were killed in the course of this wave of attacks. Moreover, livestock and food were stolen in large quantities. Among those summarily shot were civilians resisting looting.

Between 16 December 2005 and 5 January 2006, Sudanese soldiers, police and Janjaweed militia attacked and looted forty villages (out of the eighty-five) in the prefecture of Borota, one hundred kilometers south of Adré. While the members of your Government’s forces were dressed the same way as Janjaweed militiamen, they were recognized by their faces by villagers in settlements close to the border with the Sudan. Your Government’s forces and the Janjaweed accompanying them killed twelve civilians in the course of this wave of attacks. The main purpose of the attacks, however, appears to have again been the looting of horses, cattle, grain and other goods. In this connection, it is reported that Antonov aircraft belonging to your Government were repeatedly seen flying over areas ahead of attacks by the ground forces, presumably gathering information on the location of cattle herds.

These two waves of attacks are, according to the reports received, only examples of an ongoing pattern of cross-border raids by Janjaweed militias (supported by the armed forces of your Excellency’s Government) into Chad, which have caused the displacement of an estimated 20,000 persons within Chad, in addition to the refugees from the Darfur.

I am not aware of any reasons put forth by your Excellency’s Government to justify these alleged attacks on civilian populations in Chad. Insofar as these attacks were linked to your Government’s armed conflict with rebel forces active in the Darfur, I would like to recall the applicable principles of international humanitarian law. This body of law requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians, and to direct attacks only against combatants (Rules 1 and 7 of the Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law identified by the International Committee of the Red Cross); acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited (Rule 2); attacks by bombardment which treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar con centration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited (Rule 13); launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited (Rule 14).

While the reported killings would appear to be in violation of the applicable law if your Government’s incursions (including those by militias whose operations are supported by your Government) pursued a military aim in the context of an armed conflict, it would be even harder to justify them under human rights law in the absence of an armed conflict.

In this respect, I would also recall that State parties to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be held responsible for violations of rights under the Covenant where the violations are perpetrated by authorized agents of the State on foreign territory, “whether with the acquiescence of the Government of [the foreign State] or in opposition to it”. (See Lopez v. Uruguay, communication No.52/1979, CCPR/C/OP/1 at 88 (1984), paras. 12.1-12.3.)

I therefore urge your Excellency’s Government to finally comply with its obligation to stop all attacks against the civilian populations, to disarm the Janjaweed militias and to stop supporting them. These obligations were set forth in the report submitted to the Commission on Human Rights by my predecessor after she visited the Sudan at your Government’s invitation twenty months ago (E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.2, para. 59). More importantly, they have been asserted by the Security Council in resolutions 1556 (2004), 1590 (2005), and 1591 (2005), and by the Commission on Human Rights in resolution 2005/82 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan.

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on this case to the Commission or the Human Rights Council, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters. I undertake to ensure that your Government’s response is accurately reflected in the reports I will submit to the Commission on Human Rights for its consideration.

1. Are the allegations reported above accurate? If not so, please describe the investigations carried out to ascertain that the allegations are ill-founded.

2. Does your Excellency’s Government consider that the operations of its armed forces and of the Janjaweed militias it acts in co-operation with in the Goungour and Borota prefectures of Chad are part of an armed conflict against Darfurian rebel forces?

Please describe any investigations carried out to determine whether the use of force by your Governments armed forces and the Janjaweed militias in the Goungour and Borota prefectures of Chad was lawful, and if not so, the action undertaken to bring those responsible to justice

Sudan: Attack on Crowd in Marawi, Northern Sudan

Violation alleged: Deaths due to attacks or killings by the security forces

Subject(s) of appeal: 3 males

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Sudan has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

Letter of allegation dated 5 July 2006 sent with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living

In this connection, we would like to bring to your Government’s attention information we have received concerning an attack by security forces against a peaceful civilian gathering in Marawi on 22 April 2006, which reportedly resulted in the death of three civilians and serious injuries to numerous others.

According to the information received, on 22 April 2006 villagers gathered in Amri school in Marawi to discuss how the building of a dam in the area has affected their livelihood. At 11 a.m., however, while the villagers were having breakfast in the school yard, security forces armed with machine guns and heavy artillery fired live ammunition into the crowd, killing three men and injuring over fifty persons. The persons killed are Mr. Atta Al Sayed Al Khidir Al Mahi, aged 30, a farmer from Abu Haraze Village, Mr. Yassin Mohamed Al Khair, aged 20, a farmer from Al Sor village, and Mr. Salah Al Faky Al Kheder, aged 27, a farmer from Alsweage village. Moreover, following the attack, the security officers arrested and detained three of the villagers, charging them with waging war against the state, criminal mischief and assault.

We would like to enquire about the reasons that prompted your Government’s security forces to open lethal fire on a crowd of civilians gathered in a school yard, reportedly having breakfast. In this connection, we would like to refer your Excellency's Government to the fundamental principles applicable to such an incident under international law. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sudan is a State Party, provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. As the Human Rights Committee has clarified, “arbitrarily” means in a manner “disproportionate to the requirements of law enforcement in the circumstances of the case” (Views of the Committee in the case Suárez de Guerrero v. Colombia, Communication no. 45/1979, § 13.3). In order to assess whether the use of lethal force was proportionate to the requirements of law enforcement, there must be a “thorough, prompt and impartial investigation” (Principle 9 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions). This principle was reiterated by the Commission on Human Rights at its 61st session in Resolution 2005/34 on “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” (OP 4), stating that all States have “the obligation … to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”. The Commission added that this obligation includes the obligation “to identify and bring to justice those responsible, …, to grant adequate compensation within a reasonable time to the victims or their families and to adopt all necessary measures, including legal and judicial measures, in order to … prevent the recurrence of such executions”.

It is reported that the incident is related to the construction of a dam that has resulted in the displacement of thousands of people along the riverbanks. Among the reportedly affected people are the Amri people, who have allegedly been in negotiations with the government over the past two years regarding resettlement sites. It is further reported that the project was carried out with no prior consultation with the communities, and that no provisions for compensation have been made for the loss of their houses and livelihoods. Your Excellency’s Government is reportedly insisting that the Amri people be relocated in Bayouda desert, an area they are refusing to move to.

In this respect, we would like to draw your Government’s attention to article 11 paragraph 1 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, by which States parties recognize "the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions", while pursuant to article 11 paragraph 2 they recognize that more immediate and urgent steps may be needed to ensure "the fundamental right to freedom from hunger and malnutrition". The human right to adequate food is of crucial importance for the enjoyment of all rights. States have a core obligation to take the necessary action to mitigate and alleviate hunger as provided for in paragraph 2 of article 11.

Moreover, as your Excellency may be aware, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing has repeatedly drawn the attention of the Commission on Human Rights to the worrying practice of forced evictions worldwide. Forced evictions constitute prima facie violations of a wide range of internationally recognized human rights and large-scale evictions can only be carried out under exceptional circumstances and in full accordance with international human rights law. In view of this, the Special Rapporteur has recently developed a set of guidelines, presented in his most recent report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/41) aiming at assisting States in developing policies and legislation to prevent forced evictions at the domestic level.

It is finally our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on this case to the Human Rights Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters. We undertake to ensure that your Government’s response is accurately reflected in the reports we will submit to the Commission on Human Rights for its consideration.

1. Are the allegations reported above accurate? If not so, please describe the investigations carried out to ascertain that the allegations are ill-founded.

2. What prompted the security forces to open fire on the crowd gathered in the school yard?

3. Please describe any investigations carried out to determine whether the use of force by your Government’s security forces in Marawi on 22 April 2006 was proportionate to the requirements of law enforcement in the circumstances of the case, and if not so, the action undertaken to bring those responsible to justice.

4. Please provide information on the measures taken to protect the rights of the people affected by the construction of the dam, including in regard to adequate housing.

5. Please indicate whether compensation and rehabilitation have been provided to the people affected by the construction of the dam, and what measures have been taken to provide alternative housing to affected families.

Sudan: Deaths during Demonstrations in Port Sudan

Violation alleged: Deaths due to the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials

Subject(s) of appeal: At least 20 persons (demonstrators)

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Sudan has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

Letter of allegation dated 18 October 2006

I am writing in relation to the incidents which took place in January 2005 in Port Sudan. According to the information received, on 26 January 2005, peaceful demonstrators organized by members of the Beja ethnic group presented a list of demands to the Red Sea State Governor, asking him to respond to their memorandum within 72 hours. On 29 January, a second demonstration took place. Government security forces reportedly used live ammunition against demonstrators although they were allegedly only armed with sticks and stones.

I have further been informed that the security forces also attacked houses outside the area of the demonstration, and reportedly threw grenades inside houses which wounded residents, including children. Reports indicate that at least 20 people were killed in the clashes. A similar protest was reported in Kassala town, leading to arrest and the reported beating of two students by security forces.

On 17 February 2005, the Sudanese Minister of Interior, Major-General Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein, set up a commission of inquiry headed by a judge to investigate the situation. It has completed its final report which has reportedly been submitted to the Government. However, to date the report has not been made public and no prosecutions are reportedly carried out.

I have received reports indicating some victim’s families refused to accept diyah and as demand a serious investigation and prosecution. Other victims’ families who were reportedly pressured by security forces to accept diyah received less important than initially promised.

While I welcome the immediate establishment of a Commission of enquiry set up by the Ministry of Interior in February 2005, I would like to enquire about the reason why its findings have not yet been published and would be grateful if your Government could provide me with a copy of its final report. In this connection, I would like to refer your Excellency’s Government to article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sudan is a State party, which provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his of her life. As the Human Rights Committee has clarified, “arbitrarily” means in a manner “disproportionate to the requirements of law enforcement in the circumstances of the case” (Views of the Committee in the case Súarez de Guerrero v. Colombia no 45/1979, § 13.3). In order to assess whether the use of lethal force was proportionate to the requirements of law enforcement, there must be a “thorough, prompt and impartial investigation (Principle 9 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, arbitrary and Summary Executions). This principle was reiterated by the Commission on Human Rights at its 61 st session in Resolution 2005/34 on “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (OP4), providing that all States have “the obligation … to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”. The Commission added that it includes the obligation to identify and bring to justice those responsible,…, to grant adequate compensation within a reasonable time to the victims or their families and to adopt all necessary measures, including legal and judicial measures, in order to … prevent the recurrence of such executions”.

It is my responsibility under the mandate provide to me to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on this case to the Human Rights Council, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters.

1. Are the allegations reported above accurate? If not so, please describe the investigations carried out to ascertain that the allegations are ill-founded.

2. What prompted the security forces to open fire at the crowd on 29 January 2005?

3. Please describe any investigation carried out (such as the work of the February 2005 Commission of enquiry) to determine whether the use of force by your Government’s security forces on 29 January in Port Sudan was disproportionate to the requirements of law enforcement in the circumstances of the case, and if not so, the action undertaken to bring those responsible to justice.

4. Please indicate whether adequate compensation has been provided to the victims’ families. Were the diyah received by some of them less important than initially promised?

Sudan: Attacks on Civilian Populations in Jebel Moon Area of Darfur by the Armed Forces and Janjaweed Militia

Violation alleged: Deaths due to attacks or killings by security forces, paramilitary groups, or private forces cooperating with or tolerated by the State

Subject(s) of appeal: About 50 persons

Character of reply: No response (recent communication)

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur looks forward to receiving a response concerning these allegations.

Letter of allegation dated 30 November 2006

I would like to bring to your Excellency’s attention information I have received regarding attacks by heavily armed militias (referred to as “Janjaweed”) on civilian populations of the Jebel Messeriya tribe in the Jebel Moon area of Western Darfur, near the border with Chad.

According to the Sixth Periodic Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (dated 3 November 2006), at sunrise on 29 October 2006 more than 500 hundred armed men on horses and camels attacked the village of Khabesh (estimated population: 600). The report (§ 5) quotes witnesses of the attack who recount how the attackers announced their intention to “destroy” the village’s population and then proceeded to shoot and kill civilians in the village, particularly targeting male children. The attackers reportedly killed 22 inhabitants of Khabesh village and injured five more. The villagers tried to fend off the attackers with guns and killed six of them.

On the same morning, around 6.30 am, a large group of similarly clad and equipped armed men attacked Hijilija IDP camp. From a distance, they launched rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and other projectiles at the IDP camp. They then entered the camp and shot the inhabitants with Kalashnikov guns and assault rifles, killing twelve. As in Khabesh, the attackers stated their intention to destroy the civilian population and opened fire on unarmed women and children. The attackers further looted everything of value, loaded it onto camels and then left.

Hashaba village was similarly attacked early in the morning on 29 October 2006 by approximately 60 armed men wearing green camouflage uniforms. The attack lasted until about 9:00 am. Again the assault on the village was preceded by RPG fire from a distance. The attackers killed eight inhabitants and looted all the livestock and other valuables.

Further attacks were carried out on villages named Hila Awin, Kiskis, Damara, Agra,Haskanita, Taif, all in the same area, resulting in further nine dead.

The OHCHR Report estimates that overall fifty people were killed by the militiamen that morning. The report also states that “[e]yewitness testimony and lists provided by the communities indicate that the majority killed were young male children and elderly men. According to information gathered, 26 children were killed, and of those 21 were under the age of ten. Eight of the men killed were reportedly 70 years old or older.” Other reports concerning the same events provide higher estimates of the number of victims.

The militias had reportedly built up their forces in the area over the period of a month, of which the authorities in West Darfur were aware. The Sudanese Armed Forces, who have a base nearby in Guzmino, did not take action. There are also troubling indications that Sudanese military personnel may have participated in the attacks, based on descriptions of some of the attackers.

In addressing this communication to your Excellency’s Government, I am aware that members of rebel groups not supportive of the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) are reported to be currently very active in the Jebel Moon area. Insofar as the attacks described above are linked to your Government’s armed conflict with rebel forces active in the Darfur, I would like to recall that international humanitarian law requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians, and to direct attacks only against combatants (Rules 1 and 7 of the Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law identified by the International Committee of the Red Cross).

I welcome reports that, in response to the attacks of 29 October 2006 described above, the Governor of West Darfur established an Investigative Committee and promised to prevent similar events in the future. An inquiry by the local government into the events can have a significant impact, both to promote accountability and to prevent such attacks in the future, provided the investigative committee offers sufficient guarantees of independence, inspires some level of trust in the victims, and makes its findings public.

Such an inquiry cannot, however, be a substitute for criminal investigations and prosecution. As noted in my 2006 annual report to the Commission on Human Rights, that “[t]he State obligation to conduct independent and impartial investigations into possible violations does not lapse in situations of armed conflict and occupation” (E/CN.4/2006/53, para. 37). This includes the obligation, whenever a State receives allegations that someone has committed or ordered a grave breach - such as the “wilful killing” of a protected civilian – to investigate the matter and either try the suspected perpetrator before its own courts or extradite him to another State that has made out a prima facie case. Should the perpetrator be found guilty, the State must impose an effective penal sanction (ibid., para. 34).

Most importantly, I urge your Excellency’s Government to finally comply with its obligation to disarm the Janjaweed militias. Your Excellency’s Government has repeatedly committed itself to do so, including in the N’Djamena Agreement and the Protocol between the Government of the Sudan (GOS), the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) on the Enhancement of the Security Situation in Darfur. Numerous Security Council resolutions on the situation in the Sudan have called on your Excellency’s Government to respect this commitment, including resolutions 1556 (2004), 1564 (2004), 1590 (2005), 1591 (2005) and 1714 (2006). The Commission on Human Rights has called on your Government to live up to this obligation in resolution 2005/82. My predecessor as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions stressed this obligation in the report she submitted to the Commission on Human Rights after she visited the Sudan at your Government’s invitation in June 2004 (E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.2, para. 59), and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan reiterated this in her 2006 report (E/CN.4/2006/111, para. 81).

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights and extended by the Human Rights Council to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on this case to the Human Rights Council, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters. I undertake to ensure that your Government’s response is accurately reflected in the reports I will submit to the Commission on Human Rights for its consideration.

1. Are the allegations reported above accurate? If not so, please describe the investigations carried out to ascertain that the allegations are ill-founded.

2. Please describe the steps taken by your Excellency’s Government to protect the population of the Jebel Moon area of Western Darfur against attacks by militia forces.

3. Please describe the steps taken by your Excellency’s Government to disarm the Janjaweed militias.

4. Please describe the progress and results of the Investigative Committee reportedly established by the Governor of West Darfur.

5. Please describe the progress and results of any criminal investigations and prosecution in relation to the attacks of 29 October 2006 in the Jebel Moon area.
   Select Year

   • 2007
   • 2006
   • 2005
   • 2004
   • 2003
   • 1983-2002

   Correspondence from 2006

   The record of correspondence for 2006 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1.

   Sudan: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Nagmeldin Abdallah

   Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

   Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male (minor; juvenile offender)

   Character of reply: No response

   Observations of the Special Rapporteur

   The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Sudan has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   Urgent appeal sent on 23 February 2005

   Nagmeldin Abdallah, aged 17, is said to be currently held in the prison of Port Sudan in Al Bahr al Ahmar state (Red Sea) and at risk of imminent execution. According to the information received, Nagmeldin Abdallah was sentenced to death even though he was 15 years old at the time of the crime for which he was charged. He was reportedly arrested on 13 April 2003 and charged by the Criminal Court in Al-Damazin for the murder of a trader in the town of Al-Damazin, in the state of An Nil al Azraq (Blue Nile) on 17 May 2003. It is reported that his appeal has been rejected by the An Nil al Azraq Court of Appeal on 1 June 2003 and that the Supreme Court has upheld his sentence on 1 November 2003. It is reported that at the time of his arrest, he did not have a birth certificate to prove his age. However, his family was later able to provide the certificate to the authorities. In addition, it has been brought to my attention that Nagmeldin Abdallah did not have access to legal representation during his trial. If this sentence is carried out, it would contravene your Excellency’s Government account in your letter dated 3 July 2003 where it is stated that the practice of the Criminal Court complies with international standards regarding the imposition of the penalty for those under the age of 18. The execution of Nagmeldin Abdallah would then be incompatible with the international obligations of Sudan.

   Select Year

   • 2007
   • 2006
   • 2005
   • 2004
   • 2003
   • 1983-2002

   Correspondence from 2005

   The record of correspondence for 2005 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1.

   Country: Sudan

   Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal, 3 July 2003. See E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.1, parag. 544.

   Government reply: Response dated 29 January 2004. The Government of the Republic of Sudan informs that, due to the lack of evidence, the death sentences passed on by the Court of Kass, South Darfur on Mr Tibin Abdel Rahman Isaag, Mr. Alhadi Abaker Hammad, Mr. Mohamed Abdel Rahman Ibrahim, Mr. Essa Mohamed Adam and Mr. Mohamed Abdalla Yahya were annulled. The case was sent back to the Court and is under consideration.

   Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. He would appreciate receiving further details on the outcome of the trial as well as receiving information concerning 4 others persons mentioned in the urgent appeal: Abaker Ahrran (m), Abader Adam Bakheet (m), Isaag Abaker (m), Saead Abdella Abaker

   Country: Sudan

   Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal, 14 May 2003. See E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.1, para. 541

   Government reply: Response dated 29 January 2004. The Government of the Republic of Sudan indicates that no death sentence was passed on Al-Taher Ahmed Hamandan, a fifteen year-old boy. The court in Nyala, South Darfur State decided that he should undergo reformatory arrangements. As to the other 25 men who were found guilty of killing thirty people, the death sentence passed on them has been pardoned by the blood relatives of the victims. Arrangements are now to be completed for registering this pardon before the Corut. The Government adds that the aforementioned information represents concrete steps taken by the competent authorities in the Sudan in complaince with the provisions containes in the international legal instruments referred in the SR’s letter.

   Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply.

   Country: Sudan

   Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal sent with the Special Rapporteur on torture, 30 January 2004 Masar Ahmed Ishag, a 37-year-old nomad, Jali Adam Ahmed, an 18-year-old nomad from Kirokirro and Musa Hamid Ahmed, a 20-year-old man from Kirokirro who were arrested in February 2003 in Lawea village, initially detained at the police station in Lawea and transferred to Nyala prison on 8 February 2003. They were accused of killing a man from Omgldan village on 1 February 2003 and appeared before the Nyala criminal court in May 2003. They were not represented by a lawyer during the trial. On 3 November 2003, the court convicted them for murder under Article 130 of the Penal Code (1991) and sentenced them to death by hanging. According to the information received, they would now be at risk of imminent execution.

   Sanousi Alhaj Ismaeal, a 27-year-old merchant from Hey Alwihda was arrested on 30 August 2003 and detained at the Nyala Janoub (south) police station after he was accused of killing a man in Hey Alwihda on 18 August 2003. Police officers in Nyala Janoub reportedly tortured, beat and flogged him in order to extract a confession that herefused to give. The Nyala Criminal Court sentenced him to death by hanging on 29 December 2003 after they convicted him for murder under Article 130 of the Penal Code (1991). According to the information received, he was not represented by a lawyer during his trial. He would now be at risk of imminent execution. On 31 May 2003, Mohamed Ishag Mohamed was convicted of armed robbery under article 168 of the Penal Code and sentenced to cross amputation by the Kass Court and that his appeal was later dismissed by the Supreme Court in Khartoum

   Government reply: No response.

   Country: Sudan

   Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal sent with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, 4 March 2004. Alakor Lual Deng, from the Dinka ethnic group, who is reportedly at risk of being "executed by stoning" after she was convicted of “adultry” (Article 146 of the Penal Code which prohibits sexual intercourse in the absence of a lawful relationship) by the Criminal Court in Nahud in Western Kordofan State in July 2003. According to the information received, Alakor Lual Deng has four children with a man from Kordofan, whom she is not “formally” married to. In 2003, on the basis of her confession, she was convicted of committing adultery with another Dinka man, Bol Yak Akoon, with whom she had a child out of wedlock. It has been brought to our attention that Ms. Deng was not represented by a lawyer at her trial nor was she provided with a Dinka interpreter, even though the trial was conducted in Arabic. It was further reported that an appeal against her sentence was sent to the Supreme Court, which will decide shortly whether the sentence will be upheld or overturned. Alakor Lual Deng is now awaiting her sentence at the prison in El Obeid, Northern Kordofan State with her ten month old baby.

   Government reply: No response.

   Country: Sudan

   Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal sent with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, 26 March 2004. According to information received scores of civilians have been killed, women have been raped and dozens of villages burnt over the last few weeks by Janjiwid militias in Dafur Sudan, and according to reports the incidents are continuing. It is reported that during an attack by the Janjawid on at least 10 villages in the Tawila district between Kabkabiya and Al-Fasher in Northern Darfur, between 27 and 29 February 2004, more than 80 people were killed and a number of school girls were raped. Furthermore in Western Darfur, on 6 March 2004, the Janjawid with three land-cruisers and some 60 men on horseback attacked al-Kureinik, a large village east of al-Jeneina, swollen with refugees. They killed 15 villagers, all civilians, including a child. Two days later on 8 March 2004 three children were among twelve people killed in 'Aish Barra, a village west of al-Jeneina, near the Chad border. The conflict is reportedly spilling over into Chad as the Janjawid make cross border raids. According to the information received, they have killed more than 100 refugees and Chadians. On 7 March 2004, 35 armed men believed to be the Janjawid attacked border sites and killed one man in Ouendalou, wounded another in Absogo, and stole 100 head of cattle.

   Information received alleges that the government is encouraging the actions of the Janjawid to pursue what amounts to a strategy of forced displacement of the populations of the region. It is reported that the Janjawid attacking villages are accompanied by soldiers, and that some of the attacks have been by the Janjawid wearing army uniforms. Furthermore, it is reported that for the past year no member of the Janjawid has been arrested or brought to justice for participation in the attacks.

   Government reply: No response.

   Country: Sudan

   Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation, 3 Jun-04. 168 people belonging to the Fur Tribe were reportedly arrested from 5 to 7 March 2004 by officers from military intelligence and Arab militia leaders (Janjaweed) and then summarily executed at security offices in Delaij, Wadi Salih province, Western Darfur State. According to the information received, the arrests took place in the villages of Zaray, Fairgo, Tairgo and Kaskildo, all south of Garsilla, Wadi Salih province. Reports indicate that they were detained for alleged involvement with the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA). During their detention, the 168 people were subjected to torture before they were executed by firing squad. Among the people who were reportedly executed, the names of over 100 persons and the villages from whence they came were provided to the Government by the Special Rapporteur.

   It is further reported that 45 civilians were executed on 17 April 2004 by the armed forces and Janjaweed who attacked Hillat Ibraheam village near Kassar Bouram and also attacked Abu Ajoura village. The names of the persons that were executed were also provided to the Government by the Special Rapporteur.

   Government reply: No response.

   Select Year

   • 2007
   • 2006
   • 2005
   • 2004
   • 2003
   • 1983-2002

   Correspondence from 2004

   The record of correspondence for 2004 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.1.

   Urgent appeals

   On 7 April 2003, the Special Rapporteur, the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan jointly sent an urgent appeal to the Government of the Sudan in connection with information received regarding scores of students reportedly detained after a wave of violent clashes between security forces and student demonstrators at a number of universities in the Sudan. Among the incidents reported, on 23 March students from the University of Khartoum held a meeting in protest against police killings and use of excessive force against fellow students during the demonstration which had taken place the day before. According to information received, this meeting was forcibly ended by police using tear gas. Al-Amin Shams al-Din, an engineering student suffering from asthma, reportedly died during the incident. It was reported that police claim he fell from a building, while students state that he was shot after other students lifted him up to avoid the tear gas which would have impaired his breathing. Fears were expressed that the force used on demonstrators was excessive enough to cause death or injury.

   On 14 May 2003, the Special Rapporteur, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal to the Government of the Sudan regarding Al-Taher Ahmad Hamdan, a 15-year-old boy who was sentenced to death by a court in Nyala, South Darfur State. The young man, along with 25 other men were allegedly found guilty